I think I am becoming a skeptic. Should I be afraid?

i question the “necessity” of romantic love in one’s life
There is a saying, “It is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.” Bullshit. I say the scars of unrequited or betrayed love can have a worse lasting effect on the psyche than a life lived without ever knowing sweet first love …or its one and only kind of pain. I also believe that not all people were “made” or “cut out for” having a lifelong romantic partner in their lives.

I think I am becoming a skeptic. Should I fear it?

i question the existence of “God”
I used to fear and worship the Christian God; now I am released of the fear because I doubt there is anything to worship. (Knowledge is the enemy of faith.) Thank the likes of Polemarchus and my exposure to ILP in part, but do not “blame” them. My questioning, learning, and skepticism have released me from the instilled childhood fear of an eternal firey damnation and the firm belief in a ‘Loving God’ Who would exact such forms of retribution from His “children.” I can now openly scoff at the idea that I must conform my beliefs to a 2,000 year old book of men, ostensibly divinely inspired.

i question this new personal worldview
I fear, however, that in so doing, I am becoming more cynical as I age. No faith, only the vaguest notions of higher purpose, and arbitrary or abstract and nonspiritual reasoning and causation. Where’s the comfort in one’s personal times of trial? The comfort must come from within. So… Let me get this straight. Skeptic is ok. Questioning is healthy and good. Right? But habitual cynicism is something we all want to avoid. Don’t we?

Greetings all. It has been a short while and I have been away. Thank you for your input!

John

Hi John,

It’s OK to be a bit uncomfortable when we begin to strip away the illusions and delusions, but there is nothing to fear. Just a couple of observations; Another way of looking at that ubiquitous term “love” is to consider it as intimacy. Not just sex, but genuine intimacy. Intimacy is hard to do for many people because it means being vulnerable. It means stripping yourself naked, literally and figuratively, and trusting that your “love” won’t laugh and point. It is this ultimate sharing that most of us seem to want regardless the risks. You may not be “cut out” for a life-long romantic partnership, but my guess is that you will always and constantly want intimacy. Can’t live with, can’t live without…

Disillusionment with religion doesn’t mean that your awareness of something larger than you has gone away. Saying “I don’t know” isn’t the end of the world. Actually, it just might be the beginning. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical of all the man-made explanations. It doesn’t mean you have to reject everything, which lead’s to cynycism, but continue asking the questions. You’ll always have the right answers if you take the time to find the right questions.

JT

Heh, well I’ll concede that much. The longing for belonging and desire for intimacy are likely inseparable from the human condition. I just question (and openly challenge) the old saw that it is better to have loved deeply and then lost that love. Some of the worst kinds of pain that humans experience are those which no painkiller can touch; and some of the deepest tragedies in history have emanated from opening one’s soul and standing naked before another human being only to be betrayed. I don’t necessarily believe I am not suited to a life shared with someone incomparably special and dear to me. At this time, I really don’t know that answer; but having experienced my own share of both the giddy elation and wrenching sorrow, I sometimes think it isn’t worth meddling in! …lol :slight_smile:

I should have, of course, made this into two topics - one devoted to the question discussed herein; the other to explore the merits (and intellectual liberation) of being more the skeptical inquirer than one who more easily conforms to a rigid belief system.

See? Two subjects. lol

John

Prolific, don’t forget to read those who defend “rigid belief systems” too; it might help save you from going full-off-skeptical – and it’s only fair to the argument. Best of luck finding mentors if you do.

my real name

I am one who has experienced blind love and the resulting painful loss. I’m glad that I had the experience. My worry is that having experienced such deep emotion, it may never happen again, and now anything less just won’t cut it. I do believe that suffering the pain of love is far more rewarding then leading a bland, emotionless existence.

As for the rest, I’ve been dealing with my skeptisism toward ‘god’ for a long time, and despite being surrounded by a society of believers, I am content with my conclusions. I don’t see why life should be enjoyed any less just because it may all be for nothing. We are, afterall, still alive.

i wasnt aware we were trying to avoid cynism really.

“A cynic is just an idealist with impossibly high standards.”

Hi there!

U are right!

‘It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all’
IS bs if you hate yourself as a loser and only love yourself as a winner:
for then, when you love and lose, you are a double loser:
you lose whatever and you also lose your Love for yourself and you gain hate for yourself!!
And even when you win at love, you are still only half a winner: you stiil half-hate yourself.
Hatred then hates its own hurts and make em worse.
If one has have never ever known sweet love, one islready one big hurt.

It is better to have loved and lost rather than to have never lvoed at all only makes sense if you lvoe yourself both as a winner and as a loser:
for then, when u love and lose, you never lose your Love for yourself, your love is never lost!
And when you love and win, you are a double winner!
Love heals where it wounds and makes it better.

So from what you wrote, I wd guess that you don’t love yourself as a loser and that you do hate being a loser.

So love being a skeptic and you have nothing to be afraid of: being a skeptic in Love is the best kind of skeptic.

love and respect,
iloveu

Welcome back and welcome to the fold Pro. :smiley:

There is quite a big difference between cynicism and jadedness. I am fundamentally an optimist - I think everything’s gonna turn out ok, the human race is not going to destroy the world and ourselves with it, we’ll learn how to govern ourselves intelligently and responsibly, and the hero’s gonna get the girl. That said, I am unwilling to allow anyone a whit more power than me because I know for a fact they’ll screw everything up somehow, and I don’t think people know what the hell they’re doing, and I don’t trust people who say they do know. I am a cynical optimist.

Jadedness is the negative form - one thinks nothing can ever improve, and always expects the worst from everything. The cynic merely expects the worst behavior from individual human beings…

jadedness… reminds me of the Awful Green Things From Outer Space…

-Imp

I think intelligence demands that you question everything, and don’t accept things for the way that they are. I definetly think your right on that. I think it depends on your definition of a skeptic, but I think that a skeptic is closed off, you’ve already made up your mind that you are not going to believe. Yet in questioning you are open to any answer. As long as your not closed off, and are questioning I think that that is very healthy. We once thought the world was flat, we once thought that the universe revolved around the earth, without questioning we would be lost.

Then you should be telling that to the drug companies pushing Zoloft, Paxil, the big 'Zac (Prozac), Effexor, Wellbutrin (odd name, that one), and the myriad of others taking over the U.S. and the world; and contributing, some argue, to the zombification of humanity. :smiley:

Yes. Yes it’s Dawn of the Dead in a pill.

Wakey, wakey: -->You’re screwed!<–

Well, we want to avoid cynicism as a way of life because it’s a life lived by noting landmarks of negativism along its path. Healthy skepticism is distinguished by the benefits we reap from questioning, and hence, learning.

Weee, it’s good to be writing again. It is quite like scratching an itch.

(Though some have suggested that for me the practice is more akin to jacking off. …lol?) <–This in turn actually led to my silly name: Prolificistic Articulationist or just Prolificisticationist for short. :smiley:

“John” will also do. In a peench. :evilfun: :wink:

Hi, GCT! Man, the jokes in your sig are terrible. :stuck_out_tongue:

I feel this thinking is grossly oversimplifying the dynamics of interpersonal relationships. In reality, all is not tied to “love thyself first and foremost.” While the importance of self-love is undeniable, it is no insurance against being hurt by others. Further, “loving thyself” is hard to define in as much as it is tied to self-worth, self-image, and the perception of one’s public self. Rather, to know thyself” is perhaps a more realistic demand, since it is predicated upon fewer other factors of one’s personality type, psychosocial history, and so on.

iloveu, it is nice to make your acquaintance - but that sounds a bit like doublespeak. :slight_smile:

I rather think you are a guarded or perhaps skeptical optimist. :wink:

No, no - that’s a pessimist. We’ve a hodgepodge of terms in this thread, and so is easy to become confused.

Thank you all for your comments.

John

bah, I like the first one. If you remember White Lotus and his sig, then there is definate comic potential there.